• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US may send ground troops to Libya

apdst said:
So, a no-fly zone didn't cut the mustard, eh?

Some of us told you all this from jump street.
Click to expand...

Don't give us that "I knew all along" crap. Thats just some bull**** you can twist to met any situation and claim to have known all along. A single CBS story about a General who says he think there may be others who will consider ground troops, and suddenly you knew all along it was going to lead to this point and you know exactly where its gonna go.

Let me guess if Obama sends in grounds troops its "I knew it, he was a hypocrite, I knew it the NFZ wouldn't work."
If he doesn't... "I knew it, he doesn't have the cuts to really see this thing through, I knew it!"
 
Wiseone said:
Don't give us that "I knew all along" crap. Thats just some bull**** you can twist to met any situation and claim to have known all along. A single CBS story about a General who says he think there may be others who will consider ground troops, and suddenly you knew all along it was going to lead to this point and you know exactly where its gonna go.

Let me guess if Obama sends in grounds troops its "I knew it, he was a hypocrite, I knew it the NFZ wouldn't work."
If he doesn't... "I knew it, he doesn't have the cuts to really see this thing through, I knew it!"
Click to expand...

Some of us have been warning about mission creep since before the no-fly zone even began. Sending ground troops would be the most blatant example of mission creep possible.
 
reefedjib said:
War has only been declared 5 times, last time was WW II. Since then, 6 times Congress has authorized war without declaring it, including Vietnam and the Iraq War II. 8 times war was authorized by the UNSC and funded by Congress, 2 of which were also authorized by Congress (Multinational Force in Lebanon and the Gulf War - Iraq I).

Iraq War II - Congress authorized.
Military Intervention in Libya - UN authorized.

Since Obama did not go to Congress for funding or authorization, and there was no immediate threat to our security, the fact is that the Iraq War II was entirely more legitimate than the Libyan adventure.

Iraq War II was not illegal.
Click to expand...

Gulf War II was no more, or less, legal than the Libya operation. The Libya op--although rashly and ignorantly executed--was perfectly legal and constitutional.
 
USA_1 said:
Looks like many of the right wingers are scared to death there will be a successful outcome to implementing the no fly zone. How would it look? A successful regime change with no US Troops lost. I know some of you are getting impatient but it's not over yet.
Click to expand...

No, that never concerned any of us, IMO, because we knew that it just wasn't going to happen. Turns out, we were right on the money.

This is a huge teachable moment for the Leftward leaning folks.
 
USA_1 said:
Do you guys honestly believe Qadaffi is in total control? If so I have some swampland in Florida you might be interested in.
Click to expand...

Of course not. It's a civil war. East vs West. Tribe against tribe.

But...
  • Do you seriously think these high level defections impact Qaddafi's ability to project military force against the rebels?
  • Do you think the close air support missions by NATO will affect Qaddafi's ability to project military force, once he has figured out to protect his forces by embedding them in civilian populations (which he is already doing)?
  • Do you think that Qaddafi's tribe will abandon him?
  • Do you think that if Qaddafi does leave power, that something resembling a stable government will form in his absence?

It is a complete cluster****.
 
Kandahar said:
Some of us have been warning about mission creep since before the no-fly zone even began. Sending ground troops would be the most blatant example of mission creep possible.
Click to expand...

"Us"? You mean, "they", right? You're the one that absolutely insisted that we needed to send a, "peace keeping", force to the Ivory Coast, swearing up-n-down that it was the jackpot answer to the problem.

As the saying goes, "fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity".
 
apdst said:
Gulf War II was no more, or less, legal than the Libya operation. The Libya op--although rashly and ignorantly executed--was perfectly legal and constitutional.
Click to expand...

I would say that congressional authorization (Iraq War II) trumps UN authorization with questionable (no direct threat) exercise of the War Powers Act (Libya operation).
 
USA_1 said:
Do you guys honestly believe Qadaffi is in total control? If so I have some swampland in Florida you might be interested in.

Click to expand...


Total control? No. In control, yes. In case you haven't noticed, the rebs aren't controlling jack ****.
 
reefedjib said:
I would say that congressional authorization (Iraq War II) trumps UN authorization with questionable (no direct threat) exercise of the War Powers Act (Libya operation).
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that. The War Powers Act is what it is.
 
apdst said:
"Us"? You mean, "they", right?
Click to expand...

Umm I have opposed the Libyan intervention from the beginning. Try reading. :2wave:

apdst said:
You're the one that absolutely insisted that we needed to send a, "peace keeping", force to the Ivory Coast, swearing up-n-down that it was the jackpot answer to the problem.
Click to expand...

Different situations call for different solutions. And I never called for us to inject ourselves into a war in either Libya or Cote d'Ivoire, and certainly not to take sides. I called for a peacekeeping force to PREVENT a war in Cote d'Ivoire.

But rather than make this thread about me, why don't you try to stay on the subject. Especially when you apparently agree with me, and you're just being an ass for fun. :roll:
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
I wouldn't say that. The War Powers Act is what it is.
Click to expand...

The War Powers Resolution, Title 50, Chapter 33, para 1541, part c, point 3:

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Click to expand...


  1. There was no declaration of war.
  2. There was no specific statutory authorization, unlike the Iraq War II.
  3. There was no national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

QED.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Some of us have been warning about mission creep since before the no-fly zone even began. Sending ground troops would be the most blatant example of mission creep possible.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I think the involvement of serious ground forces in Libya, not just a few rescue teams or SF to train the revels, is a real risk and is a direction this conflict in Libya may led. But I not going to say I know its going to happen or if it does happen that I knew it was going to.
 
I know how this **** will end because most revolutions either end badly or at best, are pretty bad for years--talking about DECADES. Libya will go like the 1917 Russian rev.

The secular democratic small fry group will not be well organized, but the homicidal crazy fanatic group, in this case the MB and other fundamental Islamic groups will be.

They'll will control, the revolution and there will be a 30, 40+ year rule by the religious front.
 
ric27 said:
I know how this **** will end because most revolutions either end badly or at best, are pretty bad for years--talking about DECADES. Libya will go like the 1917 Russian rev.

The secular democratic small fry group will not be well organized, but the homicidal crazy fanatic group, in this case the MB and other fundamental Islamic groups will be.

They'll will control, the revolution and there will be a 30, 40+ year rule by the religious front.
Click to expand...

So what do you have to say about the American revolution since we're following your logic.
 
Jetboogieman said:
So what do you have to say about the American revolution since we're following your logic.
Click to expand...

Different mindset...

American revolution ended well. The French Revolution was pretty bad for awhile, but ended up as republic that benefited it's citizens, even if they did have to get used to never winning a war.

The Spanish Civil war was really ****ed up for awhile and took decades to mellow out - now they're a monarchy again . Russian revolution of 1917? ****ed up China 1949? Cuba? Mexican revolution going way back?

All ****ed up

The American and French Revs were the only ones I believe ended adequately though, the French ended up slaughtering a lot of people in the process.

It was a bloody carnage
 
Kandahar said:
Umm I have opposed the Libyan intervention from the beginning. Try reading. :2wave:



Different situations call for different solutions. And I never called for us to inject ourselves into a war in either Libya or Cote d'Ivoire, and certainly not to take sides. I called for a peacekeeping force to PREVENT a war in Cote d'Ivoire.

But rather than make this thread about me, why don't you try to stay on the subject. Especially when you apparently agree with me, and you're just being an ass for fun. :roll:
Click to expand...

LOL...that was the objective in Libya. How did that turn out?
 
apdst said:
LOL...that was the objective in Libya. How did that turn out?
Click to expand...

There was already a civil war in Libya when we intervened. "Preventing a war" might have been the political spin, but that was never the goal. When our policy was regime change in Libya and Gaddafi wouldn't go peacefully, by definition we were ENCOURAGING a war by aiding the rebels.

I called for intervention in Cote d'Ivoire before there was a major war, in order to prevent said war. Not the same situation. Now why don't you stay on the subject at hand instead of trying to make this about me or about Cote d'Ivoire.
 
apdst said:
There's too much precedence to support Obama's use of the War Powers Act. Let's face it, he didn't break any laws.
Click to expand...

Well I agree that there is precedence for what he did, but that just means that others broke the law as well.
 
SE102 said:
Politically compelled to choose the damned-if-you-do in this situation? From the little I gather it may be less of a quagmire than other 'distractions'.
Click to expand...

The preferred alternative to putting US troops on the ground to fight for Al Qeada is to walk away and let Libya disintegrate. Gaddhafi will win, clean up on Al Qeada, and go back to being the trash that he is. Since the US had no reason to be in Libya, has no interests served by staying in Libya, the US should leave.

Now.

So what if it makes that idiot in the White House look like a fool? Who are we trying to keep that secret from, anyway?
 
reefedjib said:
Not at all worried of a successful outcome (in my role as neocon, not a right winger). That would be stellar. But on what planet do you predict a successful outcome?
Click to expand...

On what planet is "success" defined?

Is it success when the US removes Gadhaffy from the list of the living?

Then what?

Then the US faces the prospect of the terrorst Muslim Brotherhood vying for control of Libya with Al Qeada. Is the US supposed to hope for an outcome like the Kilkenny Cats? Or should Obama chose sides, again?

One cannot claim success until one defines success.
 
apdst said:
There's too much precedence to support Obama's use of the War Powers Act. Let's face it, he didn't break any laws.
Click to expand...

No he didn't. Congress did when they abdicated their Constitutional responsibility by passing the War Powers Act. But, since Obama did go to war under that illegal law, that kind of makes him an accessory, don't you think?
 
apdst said:
There's too much precedence to support Obama's use of the War Powers Act. Let's face it, he didn't break any laws.
Click to expand...

It makes no difference how many laws someone breaks if there's no one there to enforce the laws. And who the hell is going to enforce the WPA? Congress? LOL :rolleyes:
 
USA_1 said:
Do you guys honestly believe Qadaffi is in total control? If so I have some swampland in Florida you might be interested in.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, Gadhafi has regained the upper hand, not because of inherent advantages his dictatorship possesses, but largely because of the gross incompetence of those opposing him. Had the anti-Gadhafi forces had even minimally competent leadership, they would be doing much better. Instead, their level of political and military incompetence has been breathtaking. That they have squandered the enormous opportunities given to them by NATO's air support, including previous periods of close-air support, is astounding. That they have made no efforts to give Libya's people incentives to support them reveals a near total absence of foresight. An offer of amnesty requires no political risks whatsoever. But no such offer was made. They offered no visionary document outlining what a post-Gadhafi Libya would look like and stand for. In short, they have given Libya's peoples and tribes little reason to support them.

In the end, it is their incompetence that is leading to their setbacks. Today, they do not enjoy the broad support of Libya's people precisely for the reasons stated above. Their military operations lack even basic elements of strategy. Not surprisingly, MSNBC reports:

Government soldiers and rebel gunmen battled in the streets of a key front-line city Saturday after the Libyan military used shelling and guerrilla-style tactics to open its most serious push into opposition territory since international airstrikes began. NATO airstrikes, meanwhile, hammered at Gadhafi's ammunition stockpiles and armored forces, destroying 17 tanks...

Recapturing the city would give the Libyan military a staging ground to attack the rebels' main stronghold, Benghazi, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) farther east along the coastal highway. Moammar Gadhafi's forces were approaching Benghazi when they were driven back by the international air campaign launched last month to protect civilians and ground Gadhafi's aircraft.

As noted previously, I would strongly oppose any U.S. troops being sent to Libya to compensate for the rebels' political and military inadequacies. No critical U.S. interests are involved. There is no compelling reason the U.S. should wage Libya's revolution, much less for individuals who have demonstrated very little political and military competence.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see something friendly and positive arise from this situation, but I think that's an extremely low percentage bet.

This is an internal issue, not an international crisis. If the rebels hadn't "spontaneously" risen up before they were capable of taking effective action to remove the regime they wouldn't have been chopped up so badly.

The mil units defecting to the rebels, the country would have been ripe for an Egypt-style military coup in support of *freedom for the people*. All they had to do was maintain the rage for a few months, and prepare and organise behind the scenes before lynching Omar. As it stands now, the whole opposition is disorganised and whatever the issue, there is probably some heavy infighting going on inside the rebel camp

Its a total fiasco
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom